I have long been tired of the Paulbot meme that he receives most of the support among military affiliated donators. Looking at the despicable display of an Army Reserve Soldier at the Ron Paul rally in Iowa was the last straw for me. It was disgraceful to the uniform and embarrassing to me a service member.

First off Iowa and New Hampshire lack a large military presence. South Carolina and Florida do not (hint hint, I will follow up on this after Florida). Here's the South Carolina active military population:

Ft. Jackson (Columbia, Richland County): 4,000 active military (Note: Ft. Jackson is largely a training base with transients who do not have SC voting privileges).

Marine Corps Bases- (Beaufort, Beaufort County): 4,000 USMC at MCAS Beaufort & 2,500 Marines and Sailors at Marine Corps Recruiting Depot-Beaufort.This is a rough total of 29,000 active military personnel in South Carolina from all branches of the service (minus Coast Guard). As of this time is a safe bet to say Congressman Paul lost the primary with approximately 13% of the vote. Respectable under most circumstances and he certainly has his support. What I want to point out is Ron Paul's percentages in the above counties is an average of 13.1%. Adding in Aiken County (neighbors Ft. Gordon in Augusta, GA) it lowers to 12.3%. Fact is Congressman Paul never got above 20% in any county other than Abbeville County and then he only lead Romney by 130 votes.

Let me state this clearly: there is no definitive proof that Ron Paul's alleged military support translates to actual donations or votes among active military personnel or even affiliated personnel. How do I justify that statement versus the balance sheets released by the Paul campaign? Easy, I've been active military since Paul has been running for the Presidency and have yet to come across a single supporter. Only recently did I find one former Soldier who was a Paul supporter and he was on Twitter. I won't lie, I see the appeal that his message has with families and some service members: the message of appeasement appeals to those who love us and to those of us who want to ride behind the oceans. Frankly I'd call them the ill-informed and ignorant of world affairs.

Another likely scenario is Ron Paul's supporters are jamming the donation boxes with false statements about who their employers are. If you've donated to any campaign you know that you can put down anything in the "occupation" box. I'm sure Ron Paul also leads in donations among people who work for Starfleet Command.

ib_thinkin:This. I mean, seriously, if you're a fan of Citizen's United and the general trend of big money dominating every forum for speech it encounters, you're gonna love it when the derpiest Supreme Court a President Paul can conjure says that anyone should be able to have any gun that they can buy.

Actually, you already can in a lot of places. I had an FFL for three years, and I could own a howitzer, air-air rockets, and other such wonderful toys if I so chose and could afford them. At least, under federal law. Living in Virginia, there was no limit on them (save one automatic shotgun).

The unspoken policy to ignore Ron Paul is so obvious to those who have eyes to see that it has almost reached comic proportions. What amazes me is the guy who self-identifies as enlightened and anti-establishment but somehow finds it so objectionable to support the ONE candidate from either party who fits most closely with his supposed core beliefs.

Can't seem to square that circle. It's as though we've lost the collective ability to figure out who is lying to us and who isn't. It is tragic that this opportunity is being squandered and I regretfully believe that the window of opportunity to turn the inevitable tide back is quickly shutting.

Not saying this is some kinda doomsday scenario. Life goes on, things stumble forward, people talk... I just think we're losing (lost?) a part of ourselves that, once gone, will be sorely missed.

TV's Vinnie:Let me state this clearly: there is no definitive proof that Ron Paul's alleged military support translates to actual donations or votes among active military personnel or even affiliated personnel. How do I justify that statement versus the balance sheets released by the Paul campaign? Easy, I've been active military since Paul has been running for the Presidency and have yet to come across a single supporter. Only recently did I find one former Soldier who was a Paul supporter and he was on Twitter. I won't lie, I see the appeal that his message has with families and some service members: the message of appeasement appeals to those who love us and to those of us who want to ride behind the oceans. Frankly I'd call them the ill-informed and ignorant of world affairs.

skylabdown:What amazes me is the guy who self-identifies as enlightened and anti-establishment but somehow finds it so objectionable to support the ONE candidate from either party who fits most closely with his supposed core beliefs.

Who else here wants us to bring back the Articles of Confederacy and the Gold Standard beside Paul supporters?

Which is pretty much what Paul wants to do by giving more powers back to the states.

Like others have said, for one good idea the guy has, he was 50 ideas that are batshiat insane and that's why I can't vote for him.

Libertarians ParadiseAs I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I take a look at my life an realize there's nuthing left,Because I've been thinking and pondering so long, got a thought and everyone thinks that my mind is gone,I know that every man deserves what ever comes to them, Accidents and bad luck you know it's unheard of,Government watching where I'm walking and where I'm talking that's the issue,It ain't the system that sets all but 1% of us up, fool.I see it so clear through the media smoke, It's the government regulating that makes business choke,See I'm the kinda thinker that conservatives want to be like, on my knees saying prayers to the gold light,

What you don't realize we've spent most of our lives living in a Libertarian Paradise(repeat)

Look at the situation we are facing. Laws without enforcement are debasing,What's the point of the law with no will to act, we might as well take all the regulations back,Wake up! It's a smoke screen, a big dream, tricking you into trading your democracy for a business scheme.Don't be an educated fool with money on your mind, they are playing you for patsies and are waiting for the timetime when there is nothing holding them back, They'll be the ones to fill the power gap, It'll be a Koched out bankers world cuz they'll have the power and their payed homies are down, fool.Democracy's death ain't nothing but a heart-beat away, one wrong vote and it goes a stray. I grew up in a democracy, government for free, now it's paid for, will it go on I don't know.

Tell me, why are you so blind to see the ones Libertarians hurt are you and me.I've lived all my life living in a Libertarians Paradise(repeat)

The power and the money the money and the power, taking control of my country hour by hourEvery bodies running just to pay the rent, living your whole life just to end up spent,You want to give the elite more power is that really what you meant?Oh yes, I've learned and I know they're greedy, I don't need you to teach me,When I choose between prescriptions and rent how can you reach me.I guess you can't, I guess you won't , your view is outta luck, fool.

Like others have said, for one good idea the guy has, he was 50 ideas that are batshiat insane and that's why I can't vote for him.

i'm not blaming paul for this, per se, but...yah...it's particularly irksome when someone of the RONPAUL/Alex Jones mold advocates something sane, they get their crazy all over the topic.

sane ideas suddenly become 'unserious' as the whackaloon brigade is advocating them. not as irksome as otherwise 'serious' people not mentioning the sane aspects advocated, either, but...that's another thread.

Well, your Marine buddies are idiots. Ron Paul would be the worst thing to happen to the US. His policies against Social Security for one thing would be a horror. The human toll would be staggering if he got his way.

vygramul:ib_thinkin: This. I mean, seriously, if you're a fan of Citizen's United and the general trend of big money dominating every forum for speech it encounters, you're gonna love it when the derpiest Supreme Court a President Paul can conjure says that anyone should be able to have any gun that they can buy.

Actually, you already can in a lot of places. I had an FFL for three years, and I could own a howitzer, air-air rockets, and other such wonderful toys if I so chose and could afford them. At least, under federal law. Living in Virginia, there was no limit on them (save one automatic shotgun).

GoldSpider:I don't see how that makes these restrictions any more legal.

For the same reason that Congress even has the power to restrict some speech on the basis of its content: absolute freedom of speech is unworkable, and only complete retards think the intent of the First Amendment was to assure that we had it.

ib_thinkin:GoldSpider: I don't see how that makes these restrictions any more legal.

For the same reason that Congress even has the power to restrict some speech on the basis of its content: absolute freedom of speech is unworkable, and only complete retards think the intent of the First Amendment was to assure that we had it.

ib_thinkin:On top of this, the State has the authority to place reasonable limits on how, where, and when you may speak, and what's "reasonable" is going to vary on the basis of when and where you want to do it.

Except the government also seems to be the arbiter of what is "reasonable" as well, which means such restrictions have no basis in law.

malaktaus:Why do you see this as such a crazy idea? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why we have a standing army, or is it just something you take for granted?

Because sometime after the Korean War we decided to avoid repeating the same mistake we made in 1796, 1816, 1849, 1866, 1901, 1919, and 1945. There comes a point when repeating the same mistake over and over (totally unprepared to participate in a "modern" conflict) reaches the point of absolute stupidity. All your points raised were raised each time the standing army was reduced to a bare minimum and each time it haunted the armed forces when they had to expand rapidly and rearm in the face of a new conflict. The fact that you even attempted your argument is evidence that this kind of inexplicable stupidity is alive and well.

So no answer then gold? Are there ANY, in your opinion, valid restrictions on the first?

Because if not, the right to grab a megaphone (manner) and go anywhere you want (place) and scream about God knows what in the middle of the night (time) should be allowed right?

Now maybe you think a private citizen's property rights supersede the first, and I can't yell at your wife while watching you do the nasty in your home. Maybe you think a military base should keep me out too.

Can I blast my voice from your sidewalk though? can I stop a parade by making my preferred speech zone the direct path it takes?

Can we have a speech zone on the podium of a presidents announcement and talk over him?

See, me? I think some things are acceptable restrictions for good reason. You've seemed to me disagreeing with that,.so I'm trying to pin down your views. help me out.

NewportBarGuy:Money equals free speech only in a world where everyone has an equal amount of money. They interpreted the U.S. Constitution very poorly.

The concept of money as speech has to do with campaign donations, and that's been limited as a curb against corruption or the appearance thereof. Citizens United dealt not with the donation of money, but the funding of advertisements, which are absolutely speech. That's not money as speech, that's speech as speech.

As Montana and Justice Ginsburg suggest, however, even Citizens United left the door open to a re-regulation of advertisements in the event that the new rule results in corruption or the appearance of corruption. I'd say it has done at least one, if not the other, and that's exactly why Citizens United was a terrible decision for public policy, but not a terrible decision for Constitution interpretation.

ib_thinkin:NewportBarGuy: Money equals free speech only in a world where everyone has an equal amount of money. They interpreted the U.S. Constitution very poorly.

The concept of money as speech has to do with campaign donations, and that's been limited as a curb against corruption or the appearance thereof. Citizens United dealt not with the donation of money, but the funding of advertisements, which are absolutely speech. That's not money as speech, that's speech as speech.

As Montana and Justice Ginsburg suggest, however, even Citizens United left the door open to a re-regulation of advertisements in the event that the new rule results in corruption or the appearance of corruption. I'd say it has done at least one, if not the other, and that's exactly why Citizens United was a terrible decision for public policy, but not a terrible decision for Constitution interpretation.

Make a list of things from the same era as the Constitution and you'll quickly realize why it's not holding up so well.

Dracolich:Make a list of things from the same era as the Constitution and you'll quickly realize why it's not holding up so well.

I think it's holding up fine, so long as you don't act like a retard and pretend that it can be an "instruction manual" when it was intentionally written in such a way as to be vague enough to be accepted by ideological opponents. Weaver95 was biatching about the Fifth Amendment, but I'd love to hear his take on what the phrase "due process" means. I'm sure, were the framers here today, they'd love to hear it, too.

morgantx:NewportBarGuy: NewportBarGuy: snuffy: NewportBarGuy: You mean the guy who wants to eliminate the standing army because it's not in the constitution?

when did he say that?

Here (new window)

Never mind. That's just his stupid supporters.

Here are his actual words: It's interesting to note that our Founders warned against maintaining standing armies at all, both because of the taxes required to do so and the threats to liberty posed by a permanent military. (new window)

NewportBarGuy: snuffy: NewportBarGuy: You mean the guy who wants to eliminate the standing army because it's not in the constitution?

when did he say that?

Here (new window)

Serious question here:

I read both of the pieces that you posted. The first was NOT written by Ron Paul; it is unfair to generalize that his platform is identical to the feelings of each and every one of his individual supporters. The second, while written by Ron Paul, did not back up your original point. You originally said that Ron Paul wanted to "eliminate the standing army." His article says nothing of the kind. He does say:

"The old model of warfare, based on invading and occupying whole nations, is unsustainable. Both financially and in terms of manpower, American simply cannot afford any more Koreas, Vietnams, or Iraqs. Many people in the Pentagon understand that America's armed forces are not trained in occupation, policing, and nation-building. The best way to support the troops is through a sensible foreign policy that does not place them in harm's way unnecessarily or force them into uncomfortable, dangerous roles as occupiers."

He makes an interesting note that the concept of standing armies was not entirely supported by our Founding Fathers, but at no point does he say that if elected President, he plans to eliminate the standing army.

As a military wife, I do NOT want to support a candidate who is truly "anti-military", but I'm not seeing that by what I've read from RP. Do you have any citations that directly speak to his platform and position on the military? What does he plan to do with the military if he's elected President? Does he actually plan to eliminate the standing army (as you claim) or simply use "sensible foreign policy" to keep more and more of our nation's military members safe (as in the article you cited previously)?

Here's the crux of the matter: if we're keeping or military men and women 'safe', why are we paying them? And why should we keep our service men and women safe in the first place? They signed up to kill or die. If you want to be safe, go into accounting. If you join the armed forces, I expect you to wake up every day knowing today could be the day you die for my comfort and wish that you hadn't failed out in the 9th grade.

If we enter a time when sensible foreign policy allows us to keep our military safe, I sincerely hope we have a politician with enough balls to cut the majority of them off the welfare teat.

Official Summary1/14/2009--Introduced.We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving:(1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion;(2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or(3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws. Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states. Authorizes any party or intervener in matters before any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under this Act. Provides that the violation of this Act by any justice or judge is an impeachable offense and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal. Negates as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act.

ib_thinkin:Citizens United left the door open to a re-regulation of advertisements in the event that the new rule results in corruption or the appearance of corruption.

My concern is this... We, in this country, see and know what corruption is. We see it every day in laws that line other people's pockets. We are very slow and meek to act to correct our errors. I do not want this Super PAC sh*t to stand for the next 20 years where the wealthy can corrupt the minds of the feeble minded. That's the job of the GOP and DNC and the respective candidates.

NewportBarGuy:My concern is this... We, in this country, see and know what corruption is. We see it every day in laws that line other people's pockets. We are very slow and meek to act to correct our errors. I do not want this Super PAC sh*t to stand for the next 20 years where the wealthy can corrupt the minds of the feeble minded.

ib_thinkin:Dracolich: Make a list of things from the same era as the Constitution and you'll quickly realize why it's not holding up so well.

I think it's holding up fine, so long as you don't act like a retard and pretend that it can be an "instruction manual" when it was intentionally written in such a way as to be vague enough to be accepted by ideological opponents. Weaver95 was biatching about the Fifth Amendment, but I'd love to hear his take on what the phrase "due process" means. I'm sure, were the framers here today, they'd love to hear it, too.

I'd go easy on him. He had a hard time with that War Hammer thread. Face planted like a champ.

As far as the constitution goes though, there's more writings on it from the supreme court's interpretations of it than there is document itself at least a dozen times over. When we've written or helped write the constitutions of other nations, we've made sure to avoid particularly unfortunate wordings and have always ended up with a document that only barely resembles our own. We as a nation seem to worship it a bit as though it were beyond our ability to change the core of it. I'm not sure we should open the debate on its contents too much, but at the very least we should officially change its obtuse wording and grammatical errors.

Dracolich:We as a nation seem to worship it a bit as though it were beyond our ability to change the core of it.

I think we don't need to change the core of it, which is the system of checks and balances that we make sure to incorporate everywhere we're helping to write a Constitution. What we want to do is avoid the painful paths we've had to take when it comes to individual rights. Where we're still operating on US-1, we'd like to implement an Interstate Highway for other folks to prevent them from going through the turmoil we've had to.

Our Constitution has survived, and it works fine to this day; sometimes, it's an inconvenience to popular will, but that, in and of itself, isn't necessarily bad.

TV's Vinnie:Under a President Ron Paul, the Southern states will bring back slavery (and a few of those will also bring back witch-burning as well), and RP will just shrug & go "meh".

It never left.It's called "illegal" labor and prison labor now.Hell, there's a prison in Louisiana that was once a cotton plantation. The cotton is still there, it's just worked by a penitentiary with "prison" (slave) labor now and it's a "prison" instead of a "slave plantation".